World Cup Bid

[The Fish 9015]

2018 bid chief calls for humility

 

Live - World Cup 2018 bid launch

 

The chief executive of England's bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup is optimistic on their chances but says arrogance or complacency will end them.

 

Andy Anson says lessons have been learned from the unsuccessful attempt to host the 2006 competition.

 

While praising England's stadia and passion for football, Anson made it clear that attitudes have to change.

 

"We cannot be arrogant or complacent. This campaign has to be about working hard," Anson told BBC Radio 5 Live.

 

"One of the things we learned from the last World Cup bid was we were perceived to be arrogant around the world in how we presented ourselves.

 

"The tone of this campaign has to be different. We will certainly not be saying that football is coming home. It was an arrogant slogan.

 

"There are a number of strong competitors. And we just have to do the best job we can against the whole field."

 

However, Anson does feel that England has the infrastructure and the fan base to put them in a leading position.

 

"We have Wembley Stadium, fantastic stadiums in Manchester, Liverpool and across the country. We have a strong start point," he added.

 

"Football is the passion within this country - millions of people watch and play every single week. To be able to tap into that gives us a strong starting point.

 

"I cannot imagine anything more exciting than in nine years from now having a World Cup here.

 

"It is something to strive for and it is achievable even in these tough economic times."

 

David Beckham is expected to front England's official bid to host the competition.

 

There will be a launch party on Monday at Wembley Stadium with past and present England players set to attend as well as a video contribution from Prince William.

 

Fifteen English cities have been short-listed as prospective venues for matches, and politicians from all three major parties will support the launch.

 

Fifa will decide who hosts the 2018 and 2022 tournaments in December 2010.

 

The Football Association, which spent millions on the unsuccessful attempt to host the 2006 competition, had already expressed its interest in both the 2018 and 2022 tournaments to Fifa.

 

The decision rests in the hands of Fifa's 24-man executive committee. Spain and Russia are expected to be England's main rivals in Europe, while the US and Australia are among the other countries bidding.

 

Beckham will face some tough competition as the face of the English bid, with President Barack Obama expected to lead the US campaign.

 

However, it has been suggested that the English and American bids could join forces, with one targeting the 2018 tournament while the other focuses on 2022.

 

In all, nine countries are bidding to host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022, with two more nations focusing their bids on 2022 alone.

 

England footballers past and present, including Sir Bobby Charlton and Sir Geoff Hurst, will be involved in the launch.

 

The 40-minute launch presentation will set out England's reasons for bidding and aims to promote the country's infrastructure and stadia, and the economic benefits that would accompany the World Cup.

 

"Much will be made about the country's passion for the game, the capacity to stage such events, a multi-cultural country that offers a home from home to all guests, and an excellent infrastructure including world-class, iconic stadia," said the BBC's sports editor Mihir Bose.

 

ENGLAND 2018 WORLD CUP VENUES?

St James' Park

Fifteen cities will battle it out to become England's preferred World Cup venues. They are:

North: Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Sunderland

Midlands: Birmingham, Derby, Leicester and Nottingham

South: Bristol, London, Milton Keynes and Portsmouth

 

"However, every effort will be made not to talk about football 'coming home', lest it be seen as the sort of English arrogance that proved so damaging during the failed bid for the 2006 World Cup.

 

"London's successful bid for the 2012 Olympics skilfully highlighted the aspiration and hopes of schoolchildren from the East End, particularly during its winning presentation in Singapore. This bid clearly aims to copy that example."

 

The BBC's Adrian Chiles will host the event, which will be followed by a meeting for representatives from the 15 cities hoping to be hosts.

 

The hopeful cities comprise Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Sunderland in the north, Birmingham, Derby, Leicester and Nottingham in the Midlands, and Bristol, London, Milton Keynes and Portsmouth in the south.

 

Two months ago, as the deadline for official bids closed, Fifa president Sepp Blatter declared himself "very pleased about the fantastic level of interest in our flagship competition".

 

Back in 2007, then-Chancellor Gordon Brown urged fellow ministers to support a potential bid, claiming: "With the Olympics in London in 2012, hosting the World Cup in 2018 would make the next decade the greatest in Britain's sporting history."

 

 

 

Ok, I get that they can't just shrug their shoulders and say that it'll definitely be in the exact places we'd all expect it to be ... but some of the cities it's including in the list of possibles are a joke.

 

Forget bias and rivallry, how can Sunderland even be considered as a venue for a World Cup game? The Stadium is average, the "city" is a shit hole and the transport links aren't anywhere close to being sufficient.

 

Obviously the two Liverpool stadia will be suggested, the Manchesters, Villa Park will be, Leeds kind of makes sense (pretty much slap bang in the middle of the country... shame the stadium is fucking shit), even Sheffield has it's attractions...

 

 

but sunderland? Derby, Leicester, Nottingham? Milton fucking Keynes?! The mind boggles.

[Andrew 4229]

I know, toon board and all but sunderlands ground is still the 5th biggest in the country so I'm no all that shocked by their inclusion but milton keynes is a fucking joke, notts maybe not they have a new ground opening in 2014 thats planned at 50000 capacity

[Howay 12462]

Aye as much as I hate to say it Uefa seem to love the mackems ground don't think it's far behind ours on their list of top stadiums, agree on all the points about the shitty city with wank transport though.

[The Fish 9015]

I know, toon board and all but sunderlands ground is still the 5th biggest in the country so I'm no all that shocked by their inclusion but milton keynes is a fucking joke, notts maybe not they have a new ground opening in 2014 thats planned at 50000 capacity

I don't think capacity is the most important thing in a world cup bid, it's transport and facilities and to be fair, sunderland has neither to any great standard.

[Guest Stevie]

Emirates definitely

Wembley definitely

St James'

New Wankfield

Old Trafford

Leeds

 

All certainties they probably need another 2-4.

 

I'd suggest Birmingham, Leicester where capacity will be 45,000

[Guest Stevie]

One of the reasons UEFA like the SOS, is the dressing rooms are the same size, one of the reasons SJP isn't rated as 5 star is because of this, as well as there not being 500 5* hotel rooms in the area, which I find hard to believe.

[TicTacWoe 0]

I know, toon board and all but sunderlands ground is still the 5th biggest in the country so I'm no all that shocked by their inclusion but milton keynes is a fucking joke, notts maybe not they have a new ground opening in 2014 thats planned at 50000 capacity

I don't think capacity is the most important thing in a world cup bid, it's transport and facilities and to be fair, sunderland has neither to any great standard.

 

Yup, they pretty much see infrastructure as equally important judging by their clamping down on the Ukraine stadiums for Euro 2012. Most of the stadiums themselves meet the standards required but the infrastructure is shit which is why they could lose the right to host the tournament.

[Guest alex]

I know, toon board and all but sunderlands ground is still the 5th biggest in the country so I'm no all that shocked by their inclusion but milton keynes is a fucking joke, notts maybe not they have a new ground opening in 2014 thats planned at 50000 capacity

I don't think capacity is the most important thing in a world cup bid, it's transport and facilities and to be fair, sunderland has neither to any great standard.

You said their stadium was average though which is harsh imo.

[The Fish 9015]

I know, toon board and all but sunderlands ground is still the 5th biggest in the country so I'm no all that shocked by their inclusion but milton keynes is a fucking joke, notts maybe not they have a new ground opening in 2014 thats planned at 50000 capacity

I don't think capacity is the most important thing in a world cup bid, it's transport and facilities and to be fair, sunderland has neither to any great standard.

You said their stadium was average though which is harsh imo.

Sorry, I meant that it's no better than the Reebok or any of the other flat pack stadia around the country.

[Guest alex]

I know, toon board and all but sunderlands ground is still the 5th biggest in the country so I'm no all that shocked by their inclusion but milton keynes is a fucking joke, notts maybe not they have a new ground opening in 2014 thats planned at 50000 capacity

I don't think capacity is the most important thing in a world cup bid, it's transport and facilities and to be fair, sunderland has neither to any great standard.

You said their stadium was average though which is harsh imo.

Sorry, I meant that it's no better than the Reebok or any of the other flat pack stadia around the country.

It is though. It's a cut above the Reebok, Pride Park, the Riverside etc.

[The Fish 9015]

I just see it as a lifeless IKEA prefab piece of crap. It's a little romantic of me, but I like stadiums to have a history, a soul or at the very least be disparate from the pack. You could spot St James' a mile away with it's lop sided build, The Emirates is unique, as is Old Trafford and Anfield. the Stadium of Light is a generic piece of plastic tat and I'll always think so.

[Guest Stevie]

I just see it as a lifeless IKEA prefab piece of crap. It's a little romantic of me, but I like stadiums to have a history, a soul or at the very least be disparate from the pack. You could spot St James' a mile away with it's lop sided build, The Emirates is unique, as is Old Trafford and Anfield. the Stadium of Light is a generic piece of plastic tat and I'll always think so.

Shearer cost more than the Stadium of Light. You've all been there, their bars are named after heroes of their's like the Hurley Bar, and they're accompanied by huge 20 feet posters of these "legends" held together like large drawing pins. FFS was 100% right when he said the SOS to SJP, is a Skoda to a Rolls Royce.

[Guest alex]

I'm not trying to big it up massively but, like I said, it's a better stadium than the identi-kit ones that emerged around the same (I have a soft-spot for old stadiums or at least ones on the original site of them too). The ones I listed really do look like they were knocked up on the cheap, whereas the SoL is definitely of a higher quality. Much better than Anfield by the way, which is a dump within a dump (irrespective of history). You can keep the Emirates for me as well, not a patch on Highbury. But that's getting away from the point a bit. Newcastle would be a much better bet and would get the odd over there and Middlesbrough imo.

[bawan 0]

I'm not trying to big it up massively but, like I said, it's a better stadium than the identi-kit ones that emerged around the same (I have a soft-spot for old stadiums or at least ones on the original site of them too). The ones I listed really do look like they were knocked up on the cheap, whereas the SoL is definitely of a higher quality. Much better than Anfield by the way, which is a dump within a dump (irrespective of history). You can keep the Emirates for me as well, not a patch on Highbury. But that's getting away from the point a bit. Newcastle would be a much better bet and would get the odd over there and Middlesbrough imo.

I second that, its fucking shit.

[Guest Stevie]

Newcastle would be third on any rational persons list. Wembley, Old Trafford, SJP. I wouldn't be particularly bothered if they used the Millennium neither as it's a decent ground.

[foreverer 0]

Newcastle would be third on any rational persons list. Wembley, Old Trafford, SJP. I wouldn't be particularly bothered if they used the Millennium neither as it's a decent ground.

Emirates?

[The Fish 9015]

true about Anfield's shittyness, but you can't argue with it's historical importance with regards to football. (something that I'm sure they'd crow about if if it were mentioned)

[The Fish 9015]

Newcastle would be third on any rational persons list. Wembley, Old Trafford, SJP. I wouldn't be particularly bothered if they used the Millennium neither as it's a decent ground.

Emirates?

 

nice stadium, but soulless on matchday

[Guest alex]

Newcastle would be third on any rational persons list. Wembley, Old Trafford, SJP. I wouldn't be particularly bothered if they used the Millennium neither as it's a decent ground.

Emirates?

 

nice stadium, but soulless on matchday

Would be rocking for Nigeria v Jamaica like.

[The Fish 9015]

[Zathras 234]

The US Bid committee put forward a list of over 70 stadia. I think the point is to show that there is a plethora (are a plethora?) of grounds that could host matches if needed, to show flexibility and ability to spread venues (and thus crowds) across the relatively small country (in England's case) or to keep travel relatively affordable in a large country (USA). It makes sense to me to list as many venues as possibly might be included in a bid such as this.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Zathras

[Guest Stevie]

I don't like Old Trafford as a stadium, and I think the interior is absolutely shit compared to ours. People who've just seen OT on TV will vote for it though.

[The Fish 9015]

I didn't think this poll through....

 

one of the mods delete the St James' park option please? I can't work out how to

[Guest Stevie]

The US Bid committee put forward a list of over 70 stadia. I think the point is to show that there is a plethora (are a plethora?) of grounds that could host matches if needed, to show flexibility and ability to spread venues (and thus crowds) across the relatively small country (in England's case) or to keep travel relatively affordable in a large country (USA). It makes sense to me to list as many venues as possibly might be included in a bid such as this.

The USA don't deserve anything. Mongrel race of people playing wank sports, come back when football is the number one sport.

[Guest alex]

I don't like Old Trafford as a stadium, and I think the interior is absolutely shit compared to ours. People who've just seen OT on TV will vote for it though.

Totally agree, you're rammed-in there as well. You can tell it's been adapted a lot rather than rebuilt.

Edited May 18, 2009 by alex